Jayzizz Christ, if you are against hate crimes why don't you devote
your energy to forcing the corrupt West Yorkshire Police to resume the
hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper and to drop the Peter Sutcliffe
myth........
FIRST THINGS FIRST.http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.legal/browse_thread/thread/2d8acd...

In the UK, 7000 citizens signed their name to a petition to expand
hate crime laws. They want the laws to punish anyone who commits
violence because someone looks different. The petition responds to the
murder of a young Goth-dressing woman and her boyfriend in a park.
The assailants didn't know the girl. Presumably they attacked her
because she was wearing black lipstick. That's how the argument goes.
The thuggish kids who attacked her should get tripled penalties
because their violence was motivated by her weird looks.
So, it would have been less heinous had she been an upper class,
pearls-wearing babe attacked because she looked rich? What if she'd
been a gorgeous blonde cheerleader and they attacked her because they
weren't getting any? What about robbing someone of an Ipod or
scratching a Porsche because "They can afford it". The list goes on
forever.

It is hideously unjust to label the value of various victims,
stiffening penalties for some murders and not others, for some
assaults and not others, etc. Every violent crime is a tragedy to be
redressed. Endlessly add to the list of special "hate crime" victims,
and someday everybody will be on it. Then we'll be right back where we
started: equal law.

But unjust penalties for violent crimes aren't the greatest danger of
hate crime laws. Their greatest danger is that they criminalize free
speech.

They criminalize certain beliefs and animosities--emotions with
which the government has no business meddling.

The government has no
more right to say you can't be biased against homosexuals than to say
you can't be biased against professional athletes or workaholics or
overbearing mothers-in-law.

Hate crime laws were created by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai
B'rith, a Jewish organization committed to demonizing--and yes,
defaming --beliefs and values it opposes.

Specifically, the ADL opposes
anti- Israel and anti-homosexual activism and Christian evangelism.

Hate crime laws were not created primarily to respond to violent crime
(which is, obviously, already illegal). They were created to
marginalize and then criminalize certain kinds of speech and "bias" -
primarily Christian.

http://www.rense.com/general81/sud.htm

That's not what I hear.

JT <zzzxtyryyetytryey@googlemail.com> wrote in news:e8cc3317-ca50-42e2-
962c-f60bb2912dc5@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
You're mising the point. (Is that intentional, by the way?) The laws
already punish anyone convicted of crimes of violence. "Hate crimes" is
a shorthand for the increased penalty associated with crimes based on the
characteristics of the victim, the most common being race, religion,
ethinic origin, sex, and sexual orientation.
The crime is considered worse, not because some victims are more worthy
than others, but because some crimes are considered to damage society
more than others.
In the US, they do nothing of the sort. Hate crimes based solely on
expression are not Constitutional.

They do nothing of the sort. Beliefs and animosities cannot be
criminalized in the US. Acting on them can.
And in the US, the government has no such right.
Hate crime laws are created in the US by legislatures. The ADL, like any
other private organization, cannot enact laws and is free to "demonize"
any views it likes.
The ADL does not "oppose" Christian evangelism.
So Christians are biased toward hate?
That's not what I hear.

"Deadrat" <a@b.com> wrote in message
news:9phMj.8423$2g1.6988@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
You mean like the white guy who called his attacker nigger while
defending himself, and was charged with a "hate" crime?

"GeekBoy" <geek@geek_five.net> wrote in
news:48029571$0$9523$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
Cite, please. By definition someone defending himself against
assault is not committing a crime, so he can't be committing a "hate"
crime for what he says while defending himself.

Deadrat wrote:
Calling his attacker nigger, was not defending himself, crimes can be
committed even when defending yourself.

Calling his attacker nigger, was not defending himself, crimes can be
committed even when defending yourself.

"hate" >> crime for what he says while defending himself.
Again, I ask for some evidence for this event.

If as the OP claimed the man was attacked and defended himself, then
he committed no crime. Nothing he said while engaged in self-defense
would qualify as a hate crime.

In article <66gbu2F2kerhhU2@mid.individual.net>,
joe <joeparkinchinese@btinternet.com> wrote:
Cite, please. By definition someone defending himself against
assault is not committing a crime, so he can't be committing a
"hate" >> crime for what he says while defending himself.
Like shouting "Get off me, you bastard!" and then being sued for
slander because the attacker was not in fact illegitimate and you
were besmirching his good name in the presence of his peers?

Deadrat wrote:
Cite, please. By definition someone defending himself against
assault is not committing a crime, so he can't be committing a
Not me that posted, so I have none.

What makes you think that?

Francis Burton wrote:
As everyone is aware, the race card is a very powerful card, that
usually takes precedance over most situations. So the comparison isn't
really valid. IMO

JT <zzzxtyryyetytr...@googlemail.com> wrote in news:e8cc3317-ca50-42e2-
962c-f60bb2912...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
You're mising the point. =A0(Is that intentional, by the way?) =A0The laws=

already punish anyone convicted of crimes of violence. =A0"Hate crimes" is=

a shorthand for the increased penalty associated with crimes based on the
characteristics of the victim, the most common being race, religion,
ethinic origin, sex, and sexual orientation.
The crime is considered worse, not because some victims are more worthy
than others, but because some crimes are considered to damage society
more than others.
In the US, they do nothing of the sort. =A0Hate crimes based solely on
expression are not Constitutional.
They do nothing of the sort. =A0Beliefs and animosities cannot be
criminalized in the US. =A0Acting on them can.

On Apr 12, 8:05pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
Is the KKK still around ??

Meta <Metare...@gmail.com> wrote innews:9ff466fc-399f-4f49-b890-7531e04651=

They certainly are. =A0They just don't run Indiana anymore.
What's your point?

On Apr 14, 10:00am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
You said above in response to the uk poster that beliefs and
animosities in the U.S. cannot be criminalized, however acting on them
can. And my question to you, is why does the KKK still get away with
it.

On Apr 14, 10:00am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
b7@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
You said above in response to the uk poster that beliefs and
animosities in the U.S. cannot be criminalized, however acting on them
can. And my question to you, is why does the KKK still get away with
it.

In article
<7992c70b-1d2d-4d3f-b7ff-32dac83d3...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
=A0Meta <Metare...@gmail.com> wrote:
What do you claim they "get away with"? =A0
Are they allowed to hate certain groups of people? =A0Yes. =A0Are they
allowed to stand on their proverbial soapboxes and tell the world they
hate those groups of people? =A0Yes. =A0Are they allowed to commit crimes
against those groups of people? =A0No.

Meta <Metare...@gmail.com> wrote innews:7992c70b-1d2d-4d3f-b7ff-32dac83d35=

On Apr 12, 8:05=A0pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
JT <zzzxtyryyetytr...@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:e8cc3317-ca50-42e2-
962c-f60bb2912...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
In the UK, 7000 citizens signed their name to a petition to
expand hate crime laws. They want the laws to punish anyone who
commits violence because someone looks different. The petition
responds to the murder of a young Goth-dressing woman and her
boyfriend in a park.
The assailants didn't know the girl. Presumably they attacked
her because she was wearing black lipstick. That's how the
argument goes. The thuggish kids who attacked her should get
tripled penalties because their violence was motivated by her
weird looks.
So, it would have been less heinous had she been an upper class,
pearls-wearing babe attacked because she looked rich? What if
she'd been a gorgeous blonde cheerleader and they attacked her
because they weren't getting any? What about robbing someone of
an Ipod or scratching a Porsche because "They can afford it".
The list goes on forever.
You're mising the point. =A0(Is that intentional, by the way?) =A0Th=

already punish anyone convicted of crimes of violence. =A0"Hate
crimes"
is
a shorthand for the increased penalty associated with crimes based
on the characteristics of the victim, the most common being race,
religion, ethinic origin, sex, and sexual orientation.
It is hideously unjust to label the value of various victims,
stiffening penalties for some murders and not others, for some
assaults and not others, etc. Every violent crime is a tragedy
to be redressed. Endlessly add to the list of special "hate
crime" victims, and someday everybody will be on it. Then we'll
be right back where we started: equal law.
The crime is considered worse, not because some victims are more
worthy than others, but because some crimes are considered to
damage society more than others.
But unjust penalties for violent crimes aren't the greatest
danger of hate crime laws. Their greatest danger is that they
criminalize free speech.
In the US, they do nothing of the sort. =A0Hate crimes based solely
on expression are not Constitutional.
They criminalize certain beliefs and animosities--emotions with
which the government has no business meddling.
They do nothing of the sort. =A0Beliefs and animosities cannot be
criminalized in the US. =A0Acting on them can.
Is the KKK still around ??
They certainly are. =A0They just don't run Indiana anymore.
What's your point?
Thanks for the clarification. =A0What do you think that the KKK "still"
gets away with? =A0Assaults? =A0Lynchings? =A0These kinds of things are ag=

the law, and I'm not aware that the KKK gets away with them.
When I said that acting on your beliefs *can* be criminalized, I meant
that certain actions, as opposed to speech, can be made illegal. =A0Not
every such action in support of beliefs can be. =A0A KKK member attending =

KKK meeting is an action in support of white supremacy, but such an
action cannot be criminalized in the US.
How that works in the UK, I don't know.

On Apr 14, 11:29am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
2e@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
e
laws
I suppose what I am suggesting is that there is a ruling group that
sways public opinion, and that would also include what goes on in the
government.

Meta <Metare...@gmail.com> wrote innews:1fbf7a49-47ba-46f3-ad77-8a140dbdd3=

On Apr 14, 10:00=A0am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
Meta <Metare...@gmail.com> wrote
innews:9ff466fc-399f-4f49-b890-7531e04651
b...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 12, 8:05=A0pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
JT <zzzxtyryyetytr...@googlemail.com> wrote in
news:e8cc3317-ca50-42e2-
962c-f60bb2912...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
In the UK, 7000 citizens signed their name to a petition to
expand hate crime laws. They want the laws to punish anyone
who commits violence because someone looks different. The
petition responds to the murder of a young Goth-dressing
woman and her boyfriend in a park.
The assailants didn't know the girl. Presumably they attacked
her because she was wearing black lipstick. That's how the
argument goes. The thuggish kids who attacked her should get
tripled penalties because their violence was motivated by her
weird looks.
So, it would have been less heinous had she been an upper
class, pearls-wearing babe attacked because she looked rich?
What if she'd been a gorgeous blonde cheerleader and they
attacked her because they weren't getting any? What about
robbing someone of an Ipod or scratching a Porsche because
"They can afford it". The list goes on forever.
You're mising the point. =A0(Is that intentional, by the way?)
=A0Th
already punish anyone convicted of crimes of violence. =A0"Hate
crimes"
is
a shorthand for the increased penalty associated with crimes
based on the characteristics of the victim, the most common
being race, religion, ethinic origin, sex, and sexual
orientation.
It is hideously unjust to label the value of various victims,
stiffening penalties for some murders and not others, for
some assaults and not others, etc. Every violent crime is a
tragedy to be redressed. Endlessly add to the list of special
"hate crime" victims, and someday everybody will be on it.
Then we'll be right back where we started: equal law.
The crime is considered worse, not because some victims are
more worthy than others, but because some crimes are considered
to damage society more than others.
But unjust penalties for violent crimes aren't the greatest
danger of hate crime laws. Their greatest danger is that they
criminalize free speech.
In the US, they do nothing of the sort. =A0Hate crimes based
solely on expression are not Constitutional.
They criminalize certain beliefs and animosities--emotions
with which the government has no business meddling.
They do nothing of the sort. =A0Beliefs and animosities cannot be=

Is the KKK still around ??
They certainly are. =A0They just don't run Indiana anymore.
What's your point?
You said above in response to the uk poster that beliefs and
animosities in the U.S. cannot be criminalized, however acting on
them can. =A0And my question to you, is why does the KKK still get
away with it.
Thanks for the clarification. =A0What do you think that the KKK "still"=

When I said that acting on your beliefs *can* be criminalized, I
meant that certain actions, as opposed to speech, can be made
illegal. =A0Not every such action in support of beliefs can be. =A0A KK=

How that works in the UK, I don't know.
Could you rephrase that in English, please.
I'm having a hard time understanding what ruling groups, public opinion,
and whatever "goes on in the government" have to do with hate crimes.

"joe" <joeparkinchinese@btinternet.com> wrote in news:66hl11F2kaqbaU1
@mid.individual.net:
That's fine. I asked for the evidence. I didn't task you specifically.
Because the Supreme Court has ruled that in the absence of a crime, speech
may not be criminalized. In the hypothetical given (or if you like, the
one I proposed), the man defending himself is not committing a crime. Even
if he says hateful things, his speech is not a hate crime.

In message <bgOMj.1177$FF6.755@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, Deadrat
<a@b.com> writes
Given that this is x-posted to uk.legal, and the OP began by talking
about a petition in the UK in response to a murder in the UK, isn't
it entirely possible that the supreme court's ruling is as useful as
toilet paper?

Mike_B <usenet@localhosts.net> wrote in
news:28ypuBaHQ3BIFwmS@localhosts.net:
As opposed to the usefulness of your little comment?
I trimmed the distribution list to misc.legal and uk.legal early on, and
several of my posts have included the admonition that I don't know how
all this works out in the UK, which has something called the Racial and
Religious Hatred Act. So perhaps this thread might be of some interest
in uk.legal and misc.legal.
Note that I responded to a question of what I thought. If you're not
interested in that, and there's no reason to assume that you are, then
you have three choices.
The first is to ignore my post. The second is to ask me not to cross-
post to uk.legal.
The third might not be anatomically feasible for you.

In message <5UKNj.6942$GE1.3236@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, Deadrat
<a@b.com> writes
You forgot the 4th choice I have, which is to reply exactly as I see
fit, and is the choice I made and will continue to make.

Mike_B <usenet@localhosts.net> wrote in
news:4yRKdtfLF4BIFw2l@localhosts.net:
My careless wording might be taken as implying that the list was
exhaustive. My bad. I didn't list the choice of telling us how the
Racial and Religious Hatred Act comports with freedom of expression in
the UK. And of course, as you pointed out, you always have the choice to
make a fool of yourself.

In message <bgOMj.1177$FF6.755@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, Deadrat
<a@b.com> writes
Given that this is x-posted to uk.legal, and the OP began by talking
about a petition in the UK in response to a murder in the UK, isn't it
entirely possible that the supreme court's ruling is as useful as toilet
paper?

Mike_B wrote:
Not really, toilet paper has a genuine usefulness.

Mike_B wrote:
Not really, toilet paper has a genuine usefulness.

Ishtar doesn't seem to think so.

Ishtar doesn't seem to think so.